This is extremely disconcerting that you would bow to pressure to censor free-speech when nothing illegal has taken place. I believe that “innocent until proven guilty” should be familiar to you. Further, no charges have even been laid. The authorities don’t even know what charges to lay, probably because it’s not illegal in the first place.

The Planet/Softlayer has been a very good host for me, and I have appreciated the good service. This is the first time for me to be disappointed, and I am very deeply disappointed that you would bow to political pressure to silence free-speech.

Please, I urge you to reconsider and allow freedom of speech at the The Planet/Softlayer data centers.

Further, I would like to host a Wikileaks mirror on my servers there at The Planet/Softlayer. I would appreciate it if you would please get back to me with an affirmative answer.

Will I break the law if I host or mirror the US diplomatic cables that have been published by Wikileaks? If I view or download them? If I write a news story based on them? These are just a few of the questions we've been getting here at EFF, particularly in light of many US companies' apparent fear to do any business with Wikileaks (with a few notable exceptions).

We unfortunately don't have the capacity to offer individualized legal advice to everyone who contacts us. What we can do, however, is talk about EFF's own policy position: we agree with other legal commentators who have warned that a prosecution of Assange, much less of other readers or publishers of the cables, would face serious First Amendment hurdles ([1], [2]) and would be "extremely dangerous" to free speech rights. Along with our friends at the ACLU, "We're deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea."

Along with our friends at the ACLU, "We're deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea."

Unfortunately, the EFF and ACLU are still laboring under the false assumption that the the U.S. government is going to restrict itself to using purely legal means to eliminate Wikileaks. Or that it will consent to have its actions on this matter be subject to censure (or even review) by its own judicial branch.

When dealing with legal issues surrounding actions that fall under the heading of "national security," U.S. courts seldom do more than act as a rubber stamp for executive decisions. And on those rare occasions when they do refuse to go along, the executive branch simply ignores their rulings. Check any history book for numerous examples.

-----------

In a way it's rather ironic. The 9/11 attacks were intended to destroy the so-called American Way of Life. Considering how much this country has abandoned its principles and beliefs in the wake of that, I'm inclined to think they succeeded.

Sad truth: despite the fact it may fly the same flag, the country that now calls itself The United States of America is not the same nation that existed before the passage of the Patriot Act, .

Unfortunately, the EFF and ACLU are still laboring under the false assumption that the the U.S. government is going to restrict itself to using purely legal means to eliminate Wikileaks. Or that it will consent to have its actions on this matter be subject to censure (or even review) by its own judicial branch.

I'm not American. I am Canadian. But I have a very deep respect for how the USA was founded and those principles.

You are perfectly correct. The unfortunate thing is that we've seen that happen before.

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but it's true.

The NSDAP did the exact same thing. It's no different. I really mean that. See here:

Quote

On 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire (possibly deliberately started by Nazi agents under Göring's orders and control to further the Party's own ends, or by communist agents). Whatever the case, this Reichstag fire was conveniently blamed on a communist conspiracy: One Marinus Van der Lubbe was summarily blamed, arrested, convicted and executed; the KPD's offices were closed, its press banned, and leaders arrested. The fire also gave Hitler the perfect excuse to persuade and convince President von Hindenburg to sign the "Reichstag Fire Decree", suspending most of the human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution of the Weimar Republic. A further decree enabled preventive detention of all communist leaders, amongst many thousands of others.

The only difference is that human rights were suspended BEFORE any events with the Patriot Act.

Quote

The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

When dealing with legal issues surrounding actions that fall under the heading of "national security," U.S. courts seldom do more than act as a rubber stamp for executive decisions. And on those rare occasions when they do refuse to go along, the executive branch simply ignores their rulings. Check any history book for numerous examples.

In a way it's rather ironic. The 9/11 attacks were intended to destroy the so-called American Way of Life. Considering how much this country has abandoned its principles and beliefs in the wake of that, I'm inclined to think they succeeded.

Sad truth: despite the fact it may fly the same flag, the country that now calls itself The United States of America is not the same nation that existed before the passage of the Patriot Act, .

And the whole world is much poorer for it. 9/11 destroyed much more than just the "American way of life".

The world follows the American example, and this is simply the foreboding of an ominous and dark future for us all.

I can't begin to express my sadness over this.

This has been considered in the news as a "tech" issue by in large. However, it isn't. It's an issue that affects us all and our freedom to speak what we wish.

I know that there's a "no politics" rule here, but I can't help but feel that it can't apply when our basic right to talk about what we want to, political or otherwise, is being threatened.

I apologize if I am over-stepping my bounds in bringing this up, but it's just a core value that I feel too many of us share.

I do not care if anyone disagrees with me -- I only care that they are free to disagree and voice that disagreement.

The 9/11 attacks were intended to destroy the so-called American Way of Life. Considering how much this country has abandoned its principles and beliefs in the wake of that, I'm inclined to think they succeeded.

Sad truth: despite the fact it may fly the same flag, the country that now calls itself The United States of America is not the same nation that existed before the passage of the Patriot Act, .

Agreed, we seem to be on the brink of our own version of the Dark Ages.

Most likely scenario is the emergence of a global police state. The last three lines in the quote below neatly put the finger on where the real problem lies. Technology begs to be used. If it exists, the temptation to use -and abuse - becomes too overwhelming for some people to resist. And faced with the absence of widespread public protest and resistance, most governments have chosen to interpret this silence as a token of consent and approval for the direction they're taking.

Quote

from Wikipedia-

The classification of a country or regime as an electronic police state may be debated. Because of the pejorative connotation of the term, no country has ever identified itself as an electronic police state. The classification is often established by one or more external critics.

Seventeen key factors for judging the development of an electronic police state have been suggested:

1. Daily Documents: Requirement of state-issued identity documents and registration. 2. Border Issues: Inspections at borders, searching computers, demanding decryption of data. 3. Financial Tracking: State’s ability to search and record all financial transactions: Checks, credit card use, wires, etc. 4. Gag Orders: Criminal penalties if you tell someone the state is searching their records. 5. Anti-Crypto Laws: Outlawing or restricting cryptography and/or privacy enhancing technologies (anonymity networks). 6. Constitutional Protection: A lack of constitutional protections for the individual, or the overriding of such protections. 7. Data Storage Ability: The ability of the state to store the data they gather. 8. Data Search Ability: The ability to search the data they gather. 9. ISP Data Retention: States forcing Internet Service Providers to save detailed records of all their customers’ Internet usage. 10. Telephone Data Retention: States forcing telephone companies to record and save records of all their customers’ telephone usage. 11. Cell Phone Records: States forcing cellular telephone companies to record and save records of all their customers’ usage. 12. Medical records: States demanding records from all medical service providers and retaining the same 13. Enforcement Ability: The state’s ability to use overwhelming force (exemplified by SWAT Teams) to seize anyone they want, whenever they want. 14. Habeas Corpus: Lack of habeas corpus – the right not to be held in jail without prompt due process. Or, the overriding of such protections. 15. Police-Intel Barrier: The lack of a barrier between police organizations and intelligence organizations. Or, the overriding of such barriers. 16. Covert Hacking: State operatives removing – or adding! – digital evidence to/from private computers covertly. Covert hacking can make anyone appear as any kind of criminal desired. One example of covert hacking software is Magic Lantern 17. Loose Warrants: Warrants issued without careful examination of police statements and other justifications by a truly independent judge.

This list does include factors that also apply to other forms of police states, such as the use of identity documents and police enforcement, but go considerably beyond them.

Electronic police states may outwardly be either dictatorial or democratic. The crucial elements are not politically-based. So long as the regime can afford the technology, and the populace will permit it to be used, an electronic police state can form.

Good essay, which was the basis for the Wikipedia article, is available as a PDF download here.

And faced with the absence of widespread public protest and resistance, most governments have chosen to interpret this silence as a token of consent and approval for the direction they're taking.

Quote true, a "shining example" of this is the one remaining (minority) segment of the population for whom discrimination is not only acceptable, but encouraged. That minority being Smokers:

They (we...) are repeatedly hit with tax after tax levied for the purpose of monetarily crippling them (us...) out of existence.They are repeatedly and publicly shamed by dogmatic propaganda.They are forced out into inclement weather for "Health Reasons".They are fined for being themselves in public.

Now, before anybody starts with the but? but? buts? ... Think really hard about this one key point. Right now in some cities you can be fined up-wards of $500 just for smoking a cigarette in a public park (e.g. outside, in a field, nowhere near anybody). Now...

With that as a precedent, in 20 years, what else won't you be allowed to do in the park?

By the way only people who can keep wikileaks alive are Pirates. Shut down one server and they'll start with another, do it till either party gives up or when new pirate steps up to serve

As long as you take Ceasar's coin, you are Ceasar's servant. And as long a "pirate" uses the government owned Internet, they are as vulnerable as anyone else. And as subject to manipulation for propaganda purposes.

It's only a matter of time before the "open" web becomes a state licensed and fully controlled utility. And despite how we techno-types think we're red hot tickets when it comes to bending things to suit ourselves, it's also important to remember that the "powers that be" have many of the "best & brightest" techs working for them as well.

The Byzantine Empire owed much of its success and longevity to the contributions of its legions of Janissaries. And savvy governments (much like The Borg) do not destroy their enemies. To do so would waste valuable talent. They simply assimilate those that would oppose them.

So please lets put all our romantic notions aside. The Pirate Bays and Wikileaks have now been coopted. The only reason why the pirate world has bern alliwed to go as far as they have is because they set themselves up to be the 'bad guys' the established powers were looking for. For all their strutting, the pirates played in well with the strawman propaganda campaign that's been getting so much op ed coverage.

Very likely, the government hadn't considered the pirate community a sufficient threat until now, after Wikileaks gave one yank too many on the udders of someone's Sacred Cow.

So now, in the wake of current events, it's obvious Wikileaks has gone beyond being seen as an embarrassment or nuisance. Not so much for what they leaked, but for their open and repeated defiance and refusal to be intimidated. And for their refusal to play by the unwritten rules of that big game better known as "international politics and diplomacy" (aka Dirty Pool).

When Spartacus rebelled, Rome crucified tens of thousands in order to teach a lesson in reality to it's slaves.

I get the feeling the web rebels are heading towards receiving a similar lesson about the reality of governmental power.

And isn't it amazing how quickly so much can be "done" about Wikileaks (despite the bluster and knowing attitude of the EFF and ACLU) now that the US Executive Branch has gotten seriously pissed-off about it?

Well boys & girls, rest assured there's plenty more where that came from. Stay tuned kiddies!